Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence

Due to the the evidence week happened during the Thanksgiving holiday, I was wondering if it would be alright if we had a day or two more to post evidence (granted that evidence can be posted after the one week, but meaning before the next stages are taken). -- Ned Scott 07:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask that myself. I basically lost four days of anything but family-oriented stuff (which, arguably, isn't particularly bad per se) due to the holiday. I'm sure plenty of other people involved were busy for a few days as well. (Probably the arbitrators too) A little extra time wouldn't hurt anything. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with people taking a few days — I was wondering why no one had posted when I did. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't know how I was expected to provide evidence, and waited for someone to "show" me. And then it took some time to collect the evidence. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Evidence presented by sgeureka

In many, if not most cases, I prefer to bring the articles either in line, or closer to in line with guidelines and policies, even if I don't get around to doing so as quickly as TTN, Ned Scott, The Prince of Darkness, and most recently Collectonian are able to destroy them. I had a whole plan for improving Scrub Day (Even Stevens) that will never see a computer screen thanks to TTN. ----DanTD (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to stop you from improving articles in your sandbox. If you bring them up to scratch (making sure they meet WP:NOT#PLOT, have real world analysis, i.e. "the producers chose to do this because..." and contain reliable sources to back up assertions) then there is no reason why that episode couldn't be an article. But if you find that there are no sources of that nature, it is probably non-notable.

For the most part, TV episodes do not have this information because they are not notable. If, for example, if I wrote an article about say, my brother and it was completely true, it still would not be appropriate to have an article because my brother is not notable. That's what TV episode articles are like. The plot details could be completely true but it doesn't mean that we should have an article about it. We wouldn't stretch policy elsewhere (band articles, song articles, living people) so why should we stretch policy to allow non-notable episode articles?

People seem to misunderstand that these articles shouldn't have been created in the first place because an article's subject needs wiki-notability before we make an article on it not after. Popularity does not equal notability.

Seraphim ^Whipp 11:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We stretch the notability guideline the other way, with relatives of famous people and 'in the news' articles getting deleted, despite being notable in the classic sense.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]